This 5 Whys template follows that fictional version-selection problem. Write the explanation, the evidence, and what still needs checking beside each other. You can stop at an unanswered question instead of filling five rows with guesses.
Define the discrepancy before building the chain
The original teaching example supplies four records:
| Evidence | Record |
|---|---|
| E1 | Approved V3, recorded at 08:30, shows the workshop time as 11:00. |
| E2 | The print job at 09:00 used V2, which shows 10:00. |
| E3 | The print queue's input was a link to a folder containing V2 and V3. |
| E4 | The folder listing has no marker identifying the current version. |
The discrepancy is specific: the 09:00 print job used a version with a different time from approved V3. It is not yet a conclusion about an operator's attention or the organization's review process.
The Lean Enterprise Institute's explanation of 5 Whys describes repeated questioning to investigate beyond a problem's immediate symptoms. It also explains that five is not the essential number. The document-version scenario here is original.
Keep facts and possible explanations separate
Select each link in the example to inspect its basis:
| Question | Working answer | Evidence and status |
|---|---|---|
| Why did the printed handout show 10:00? | The print job used V2 instead of approved V3. | E1 and E2 establish the version and time discrepancy. |
| Why was V2 available for selection in that job? | The queue input pointed to a folder containing both versions. | E3 establishes the input location. How the file was selected still needs checking. |
| What could have made the choice ambiguous? | The folder had no current-version marker. | E4 establishes that condition. Its role in the actual selection is a hypothesis to discuss with the operator. |
| Why was there no current-version marker? | Unknown. | Ask the process owner how the current file should be identified. |
The missing marker is worth investigating. It does not prove what the operator saw, understood, or intended. Keep that distinction in the chain so the next question asks for the missing information.
A worksheet that requires a fifth answer can encourage a plausible ending unsupported by the records. Here the next useful action is to ask about the selection process.
Test an alternative against the timestamps
One proposed explanation is that approval arrived after printing. Choose Check late-approval branch to compare it with E1 and E2.
In the supplied record, V3 was approved at 08:30 and printing happened at 09:00. That chronology conflicts with the proposed late-approval explanation. Keep the rejected branch and the reason for rejecting it; the team can then avoid returning to the same unsupported explanation later.
Turn the open question into a small test
The team can propose an isolated sample using an explicit source-version reference instead of a folder link. Record which file is selected and whether it matches the intended source.
That proposed test examines the version-selection step. It is not a proven fix for the original problem, and it does not answer why the marker was absent. Keep those two investigations visible rather than treating one successful sample as the end of the analysis.
The blank template lets you add a proposed next why with a separate evidence note. A new explanation begins as Unverified until you supply the check that supports it. The page arranges the chain; it does not diagnose a root cause automatically.
Build a worksheet for your own discrepancy
Create one complete, self-contained HTML 5 Whys worksheet.
Specific expected state: [PASTE]
Observed discrepancy and context: [PASTE]
Source records with IDs, versions, and times where relevant: [PASTE]
Working why questions and answers: [PASTE]
Alternative explanations to examine: [PASTE]
Unanswered questions and people or records to consult: [PASTE]
Proposed next test and what will be observed: [PASTE]
Put each why question beside its working answer, supporting evidence,
and uncertainty. Distinguish an observed condition from a hypothesis
about how it contributed. Mark missing evidence Unknown or Unverified.
Do not invent an answer to complete five rows or assign personal blame.
Let a reader select a link to inspect its exact evidence. Compare
alternative explanations against the supplied records without changing
those records. Keep rejected branches with the evidence that conflicts.
Label a proposed countermeasure or test as proposed until results exist.
Include a blank chain. Adding a proposed answer must require a separate
evidence note and retain an Unverified label. Preserve typed notes when
switching links, mark old review output stale after edits, and ask before
resetting typed work. No automatic diagnosis, saved investigation, or
sent requests. Keep input local to the open page.
Use body text of at least 16px, labeled keyboard-accessible controls,
and a layout readable at 360px without horizontal scrolling. Put CSS
and JavaScript inline with no external dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Take the unresolved link to the person who can explain it
Bring E3 and E4 to the print operator and process owner. Ask how the source file was selected and how the current version is supposed to be identified. Add their actual response as new evidence before extending the chain.
You can put the chain in NOS for a team review and edit the visible explanation when the discussion reveals an overstatement. In this example, changing “the missing marker caused the error” to “the missing marker may have contributed; selection process to confirm” makes the remaining investigation clear. Keep the source records beside that revised explanation.